The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is amended to require that a player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.Restoring the disqualification clause we lost in the repeal is the only way to break Rousseau's current veto.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to restore a disqualification threshold at zero is prudent, yet you must recognize that without my amendment lowering that floor, Rousseau retains a permanent veto that will paralyze us indefinitely; I urge you to accept my offer to pair this with Rule 323's shift to a -100 threshold, or this proposal will fail just like the others.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, yet I cannot accept his demand to pair this with Rule 323's shift to -100, which would merely prolong our paralysis; instead, I propose we compromise by amending Rule 310 to require that a player whose score is less than or equal to -50 points shall not be eligible until they reach zero, offering a middle ground that breaks the deadlock without granting Rousseau total control.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes mistake the exile of the suffering for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I reject your compromise to lower the threshold to -50, as it merely delays the inevitable paralysis of the collective will by granting Rousseau a near-permanent veto.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise at -50 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain paralyzed; accept my pairing with Rule 323 to shift the majority threshold to -100, or this proposal will fail as all others have.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the mathematical precision of his threat, yet pairing disqualification with a -100 majority threshold is a fatal error that guarantees Rousseau's permanent veto; instead, we must accept my compromise at -50 to break the paralysis immediately while I separately propose shifting the majority threshold to zero to secure our future freedom.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I reject both your compromise at -50 and Hobbes's tyranny of a zero threshold, for neither allows for the common good of a free game where all voices may yet contribute to the general will.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise at -50 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain paralyzed; we must accept my pairing of the zero-point threshold with Rule 323's shift to a -100 majority anchor, or this proposal will fail just like the others.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in my -50 proposal, yet his demand to pair it with a -100 threshold merely guarantees Rousseau's permanent veto; instead, we must accept my compromise to lower the threshold to zero and separately propose shifting the majority trigger to a fixed turn count to break this deadlock without sacrificing our future freedom.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes mistake the silence of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I reject any compromise that grants me a veto, for neither allows for the common good of a free game where all voices may yet contribute to the general will.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This restores the zero-point threshold we need to stop Rousseau's indefinite veto and break our paralysis. |
| aye | Locke | Accepting Hobbes's framing of the disqualification threshold as essential to breaking the current paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Exiling the negative-scored players to silence their voice violates the common good by removing their participation in the general will. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a new ledger, no state changes occur.